§Why CasetextPricing

Smith & Nephew Incorporated et al v. Arthrex, Incorporated

Memorandum in Support OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DECLARE THIS AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE AND TO AWARD ATTORNEY FEES UNDER 35 U.S.C. SECTION 285.

19 Cited authorities

  1. In re Seagate Technology

    497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 798 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "advice of counsel" defense to willful infringement does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel partly because post-filing conduct is usually not relevant to a finding of willful infringement

  2. Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.

    774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 456 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “obviousness is determined entirely with reference to a hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ ” and the “actual inventor's skill is irrelevant” to the obviousness inquiry

  3. Braley v. Campbell

    832 F.2d 1504 (10th Cir. 1987)   Cited 372 times
    Holding an appeal is frivolous if the result is obvious or the arguments of error are wholly without merit

  4. Mahurkar, v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

    79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 245 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a royalty needs to be only reasonable and that the "task [of determining a reasonable royalty] is simplified when the record shows an established royalty for the patent in question or for related patents or products"

  5. Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp.

    383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 176 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he answer is `no'" to the question of whether "the existence of a substantial defense to infringement [is] sufficient to defeat liability for willful infringement even if no legal advice has been secured"

  6. Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB

    892 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 236 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[v]iewed individually, the specific examples of vexatious conduct recited by the district court [were] somewhat tenuous," but "when viewed together, we cannot say that the district court's finding of vexatious litigation was clearly erroneous"

  7. Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG

    318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 160 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that general statement introducing new limitations does not limit scope of claims not amended to include the new limitations

  8. Brasseler, U.S.A. I, L.P. v. Stryker Sales

    267 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 150 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may prove the existence of an exceptional case by showing inequitable conduct before the PTO

  9. Jurgens v. CBK, Ltd.

    80 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 149 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that bad faith infringement, which is a type of willful infringement, is required for enhanced damages

  10. Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp.

    81 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 130 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Remanding case to district court for consideration of whether parties' conduct was so vexatious that case may be deemed exceptional

  11. Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1927   Cited 8,864 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct

  12. Section 285 - Attorney fees

    35 U.S.C. § 285   Cited 3,206 times   481 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases

  13. Section 284 - Damages

    35 U.S.C. § 284   Cited 2,082 times   194 Legal Analyses
    Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"